In particular, two semantic tricks are used. First, the fact that current genetic markers aren't a good prediction for IQ heritability is used as an argument against it. The other likely explanation that our understanding of those markers is widely incomplete is not explored.
Unlike our understanding of IQ, the game of matching shapes where the loser gets a teen pregnancy. That's been fully explored.
He looks like the child Taron Egerton's Eggsy and Scott Alexander
These people are full of shit popping off like they do after THREE kids. Big fucking deal, my parents had three, and my brother and I were accidents. And they let us have heat in the winter and they didn’t hit us. Three is still normal!
There are some more lovely sneers in r/longreads
This is part of a whole thing where the journalist keeps presenting their framing without question.
Yuuup, and at no point is it explicitly mentioned that what they're doing is entirely unfeasible on a societal level. How on Earth will a couple dozen rationalist having 4, 7, or even 11 kids make up for the hundreds of millions of women in America having 1.5? Or the billions of women having under 2.1 kids in the rest of the world.
On top of that, they only have 3 kids and they've already put a shit ton of time and sunk themselves over half a million in debt just for housing and childcare. I absolutely believe these two can afford it, but this isn't something most Americans can achieve, much less most global families. One couple trying to outfuck global population decline would be like if I tried to end global poverty by becoming really, really rich.
I wanted to see how much lactose was in Monterey Jack, and this was the very first result on bing for:
https://thekitchencommunity.org/the-nutritional-profile-of-monterey-jack-cheese/
It's absolutely over. This is why every other search I make has "site:reddit.com" attached to it.
And no, the site didn't tell me how much lactose there was per gram